hey all we moved the site to its new home without the dot wordpress at the end VideoGameMusicArchives dot Com so head on over and RSS feed to us

hey all we moved the site to its new home without the dot wordpress at the end VideoGameMusicArchives dot Com so head on over and RSS feed to us
Perusing a few of the posts regarding the nature of the Pokémon franchise in the past week has compelled to me to make another post regarding the series (namely this & this). A sentiment rightfully held by the fans of the games is that the series main formula isn’t exactly broken, so there’s no pressing necessity to overhaul the mechanics, aesthetics, or just general premise of the game. The only one of those I personally take issue with is the last, as Daniel’s opening paragraphs signify a collective will amongst many Pokefanatics:
“First of all, Pokémon is primarily a competitive video game – a rarity in RPGs. Like a sporting event, it occupies the same space as StarCraft, CounterStrike, and most fighting games. It’s easy to eventually notice that those games don’t change a whole lot over the years – each sequel isn’t really a next level, but just a fine-tuning of existing mechanics.”-Daniel Sims
It’s kind of hard to be a gamer (specifically a Nintendo fan) and avoid Pokémon. Sure, it’s possible to having a genuine disdain for the games, but I very rarely come across those people who just flat out don’t like the series. Either they’re indifferent to it from not spending any time with it, or they’re avoiding it out of some pseudo-hipster ideal. My personal trend of individualism and ‘passive ambition’ strikes my stance on this series with full force. I’ve never paticularly been bloodthirsty enough in any type of traditional competition, mostly because I always become bored after a certain level of skill or refinement is passed (i.e. I detest being proficient at most things). Where Pokémon comes into play here is why I’ve never been able to get on the train with battling and the likes of the card game (I’d much rather watch people play when it comes to that type of thing). Read More…
Movies, books, games — each do their own thing in very different ways. Personally, my vision has been skewed ever since picking up a controller and my personal hierarchy has been the same since I was 6 years old. I hold books and literature tantamount to video games; this is followed followed by music, which is then followed by movies and theatre. Though games will typically come first for me, written literature has always served as a basis for any form of narrative to ever show itself to the world; I will always be compelled to acknowledge it as the genesis for anything that has truly been great in entertainment. Film (the bastardized form) has always taken a back seat in my mind because it caters to the lazy and unappreciative audience that pours money into it. Games have the perfect opportunity to fall somewhere between the two. Contextual density however, should see a rapid increase over the next decade at the very least. Read More…
[About two weeks ago, I decided to make a short series of posts examining science fiction films for gaming purposes (I started with Ridley Scott’s Alien). More specifically, this is designed to create a set of analytical dissections for something that games could use to their advantage in current times. The downside for this of course, is that I have to sit films beside games once again (a practice that’s becoming boring by my own standards). The positive to take away from this though, is that my pairing of the two mediums here isn’t meant to emphasize a superficial comparison (as it usually does), but a profound sense of creative corollaries.] So I chose an even older film for this second entry, Stanley Kubrick’s 1969 film 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Ok so I know I said I was going to have 2001 a Space Odyssey up, but since that is almost completed but not yet I felt I should post the second Doctrine of Video Games
People often disregard the amount of education imparted on the mind by a video-game. In many accounts, one could make the argument that a game’s ability to educate could be a formidable opposition to the vast majority of modern schooling. Of course, I’m not suggesting that games are an exemplary replacement for acquiring knowledge; I am however suggesting that it fills the otherwise cavernous holes in people’s individual academic edification. By the “numbers argument”, it’s still a mandatory necessity that we all experience schooling as it generally is now. This educational experience is defined by having mounds and mounds of acquired human intelligence (gathered across our trivial time on this rock) slammed against our intellectual walls. This in turn will play some part in the definition of our scholastic character, as a great chunk of those things will simply have stick to the damned metaphorical wall.
Read More…